Publisher: Anthropic · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method
Not runtime tested; source-document review only. No security certification.
What task is this skill designed for?
Turn scattered project notes into a decision memo that explains the problem, options, evidence and unresolved choices.
What input and output should you expect?
Input: The intended reader, the decision to support, source notes, existing constraints and what the reader should do after reading.
Output: Expected, not independently tested: a structured draft and a reader-review checklist. The workflow is about document reasoning and clarity, not a guarantee of a rendered Word or PDF artifact.
What does it need to run?
A Claude-compatible environment with enough context for iterative drafting. Fresh-reader testing can use a separate review context when the host supports it; a human reviewer is an alternative.
Published by Anthropic as a Claude skill example; its repository documents Claude Code installation. Not independently installed or executed here.
How should you approach installation?
- Read the pinned source and confirm the workflow fits a substantial document task.
- Use the source as a reference for editorial assessment; clarify the folder’s missing license evidence before copying or redistributing it.
- Begin with non-sensitive notes and validate the document with an independent reader.
Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks
What files, accounts or data can it access?
Reads and reorganizes supplied notes, which may contain business-sensitive material. External document access, subagent use or publication requires separate authorization; the source’s suggestions are not automatic permission.
What does the skill cost?
No purchase price is stated. Usage costs depend on the host agent; license permission for redistribution remains unverified for this folder.
What are its limits and alternatives?
A simulated reader can expose unclear wording but cannot validate unstated facts or replace a decision owner. Too much questioning can slow a simple edit, so keep the process proportional to the document.
Use internal-comms for a routine status update with a known format. Choose doc-coauthoring when the document needs a coherent argument and must stand on its own.
What could you ask in a small trial?
Try this with a small sample:
Turn these approved notes into a decision memo for a reader new to the project. State the decision, options, evidence and open questions. Keep assumptions visible and do not invent missing facts.
How would you verify the result?
- Ask a fresh reader to identify the decision and strongest supporting evidence.
- Trace consequential claims back to supplied notes.
- Mark unanswered questions and ownership instead of smoothing over gaps.
Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.
Which source and license were checked?
Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder
Repository and current publisher guidance
Checked:
Unknown — no explicit license file was found in the inspected repository root or this skill folder. Public visibility is not redistribution permission; clarify terms with the author before copying or redistributing. Source with unresolved license
Version details and review scope
Source: anthropics/skills/skills/doc-coauthoring
Reviewed commit: dbd4588f9e1033efb41dad4bef2f7947c8993d44
SKILL.md SHA-256: 2e47d78846faeea4a56e9809c52700087a15a2155a3f293a3efbaded81398ef4
Source-document review. Source text and stated dependencies were inspected for this profile. Referenced code was not comprehensively audited, no runtime test was performed, and source files are not mirrored here.